Cited by 625Wound Healing and TreatmentsDermatologic Treatments and ResearchLiver physiology and pathology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 105 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 81 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Immunology of Wound Healing

Open access
Ellis, Samantha, Lin, Elaine J., Tartar, Danielle·2018·Current Dermatology Reports

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic wounds are a tremendous burden on the healthcare system and lead to significant patient morbidity and mortality. Normal cutaneous wound healing occurs through an intricate and delicate interplay between the immune system, keratinocytes, and dermal cells. Each cell type contributes signals that drive the normal phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This paper reviews how various immunological cell types and signaling molecules influence the way wounds develop, persist, and heal. RECENT FINDINGS: Concurrent with the achievement of hemostasis, neutrophils are the first cells to migrate to the wound bed, brought in by pro-inflammatory signals including IL-8. Their apoptosis and engulfment by macrophages (efferocytosis) provides a key signal to the local immune milieu, including macrophages, to transition to an anti-inflammatory, pro-repair state, where angiogenesis occurs and granulation tissue is laid down. Myofibroblasts, activated through contractile forces and signaling molecules, then drive remodeling, where granulation tissue becomes scar. Unchecked inflammation at this stage can result in abnormal scar formation. SUMMARY: Although the derangement of immune signals at any stage can result in impaired wound healing, recent research has shown that the key transition point lies between the inflammatory and the proliferative phases. This review summarizes the events that facilitate this transition and discusses how this process can be disrupted, leading to chronic, non-healing wounds.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review summarizes immune mechanisms across hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling, arguing that the critical transition from the inflammatory to the proliferative phase often fails in chronic wounds. It highlights neutrophil apoptosis/efferocytosis and macrophage polarization as key drivers of repair.

Key findings

  • Chronic wounds in the USA afflict approximately 6.5 million individuals and cost the healthcare system over 25 billion dollars annually; their mortality effect has been reported as comparable to cancer.
  • Normal wound healing is divided into hemostasis (minutes to hours), inflammation (days 1–3), proliferation and repair (days 4–21), and remodeling (days 21–365); the key inflammatory-to-proliferative transition occurs around days 2–5 and often fails in chronic wounds.
  • Neutrophils are early responders recruited by IL-8/CXCL8; their apoptosis and macrophage engulfment (efferocytosis) signal a shift to anti-inflammatory, pro-repair macrophages. Persistent neutrophils, NETs, proteases/MMPs, reactive oxygen species, and elevated CXCL8 contribute to chronic, non-healing wounds.
  • Anti-inflammatory macrophages promote angiogenesis, granulation tissue, and re-epithelialization via VEGF, TGF-β, PDGF, EGF, KGF, and other signals; impaired pro- to anti-inflammatory macrophage transition—seen with iron overload, hyperglycemia, and hypoxia—stalls healing. Mature scars regain only 80% of initial tensile strength.

Methods

  • Narrative review of the literature; no primary data, sample, or statistical analysis are reported.
  • Synthesizes immune cell and signaling pathways across the four phases of wound healing, focusing on the inflammatory-to-proliferative transition and chronic wounds.
  • Draws on cited animal models, in vitro studies, and human wound observations; no systematic search or meta-analysis is described.

Limitations

  • The paper states no limitations.
  • Evident from the text: it is a narrative review without systematic search, inclusion criteria, or quality appraisal.
  • Evident from the text: many mechanistic conclusions rely on mouse models and in vitro findings, with limited direct human chronic wound data; no original experiments or quantitative synthesis are presented.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13671-018-0234-9

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Fig. 1 Legend: traditional model of wound healing. Wound healing normally progresses through the hemostasis/inflammatory phase, the proliferative phase, and the remodeling phase. Hemostasis is achieved with production of a fibrin clot. Danger signals are released from platelets and damaged cells, which leads to infiltration and activation of pro-inflammatory cells such as neutrophils and inflammatory-type macrophages. There is an important transition from the inflammatory to the proliferative phase (days 2–5). In chronic wounds, this transition often fails to occur. In the proliferative phase, extracellular matrix (ECM) is laid down to form granulation tissue, and angiogenesis and re-epithelialization occur. Over the next year, the granulation tissue is remodeled into a scar
Fig. 1 Legend: traditional model of wound healing. Wound healing normally progresses through the hemostasis/inflammatory phase, the proliferative phase, and the remodeling phase. Hemostasis is achieved with production of a fibrin clot. Danger signals are released from platelets and damaged cells, which leads to infiltration and activation of pro-inflammatory cells such as neutrophils and inflammatory-type macrophages. There is an important transition from the inflammatory to the proliferative phase (days 2–5). In chronic wounds, this transition often fails to occur. In the proliferative phase, extracellular matrix (ECM) is laid down to form granulation tissue, and angiogenesis and re-epithelialization occur. Over the next year, the granulation tissue is remodeled into a scarCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Legend: the transition from pro-inflammatory macrophages to anti-inflammatory macrophages is a key regulatory step, allowing the immune system to promote both ECM formation and re-epithelialization. During the inflammatory phase, pro-inflammatory macrophages dominate. They are activated by danger signals such as pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) as well as pro-inflammatory cytokines. This phenotype is responsible for clearance of debris and prevention of infection. Persistence of inflammation results in a non-healing wound. Normally, macrophages transition to an anti-inflammatory phenotype in response to signals such as neutrophil apoptosis and engulfment (efferocytosis) as well as other local immune signals. This transition is inhibited in the setting of iron overload, hypoxia, and hyperglycemia. These pro-healing, anti-inflammatory macrophages are responsible for resolution of tissue inflammation and contribute to angiogenesis and tissue repair. During the proliferative phase, new blood vessels and granulation tissue are laid down and keratinocytes re-epithelialize. Pro-repair macrophages send signals to both fibroblasts and keratinocytes themselves. To keratinocytes, they release epidermal growth factor (EGF) and transforming growth factor-α (TGF-α), which drive keratinocyte proliferation and migration. Through platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), TNF-α, IL-1, and IL-6, pro-repair macrophages signal fibroblasts to lay down granulation tissue, comprised of fibrin, fibronectin, as well as collagen. In turn, fibroblasts further stimulate keratinocyte proliferation and migration through keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), EGF, and fibronectin. Keratinocytes themselves also activate fibroblasts in a feedback loop through the production of fibronectin, tenascin C, and laminin 332
Fig. 2 Legend: the transition from pro-inflammatory macrophages to anti-inflammatory macrophages is a key regulatory step, allowing the immune system to promote both ECM formation and re-epithelialization. During the inflammatory phase, pro-inflammatory macrophages dominate. They are activated by danger signals such as pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) as well as pro-inflammatory cytokines. This phenotype is responsible for clearance of debris and prevention of infection. Persistence of inflammation results in a non-healing wound. Normally, macrophages transition to an anti-inflammatory phenotype in response to signals such as neutrophil apoptosis and engulfment (efferocytosis) as well as other local immune signals. This transition is inhibited in the setting of iron overload, hypoxia, and hyperglycemia. These pro-healing, anti-inflammatory macrophages are responsible for resolution of tissue inflammation and contribute to angiogenesis and tissue repair. During the proliferative phase, new blood vessels and granulation tissue are laid down and keratinocytes re-epithelialize. Pro-repair macrophages send signals to both fibroblasts and keratinocytes themselves. To keratinocytes, they release epidermal growth factor (EGF) and transforming growth factor-α (TGF-α), which drive keratinocyte proliferation and migration. Through platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), TNF-α, IL-1, and IL-6, pro-repair macrophages signal fibroblasts to lay down granulation tissue, comprised of fibrin, fibronectin, as well as collagen. In turn, fibroblasts further stimulate keratinocyte proliferation and migration through keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), EGF, and fibronectin. Keratinocytes themselves also activate fibroblasts in a feedback loop through the production of fibronectin, tenascin C, and laminin 332CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

52 Not checked yet · 8 Own interpretation · 6 No basis given

Verify all 81 references — free account

Show all 51 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 15
15 of 15
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Findings from mouse models of wound healing can be generalized to human wound healing and chronic wounds.

    “mouse models of wound healing have shown that in non-aged, non-impaired models, neutrophil depletion does not negatively affect wound healing as profoundly as macrophage deletion [25–27].”
    “in a mouse model of iron overload, local wound macrophages persisted in a pro-inflammatory state with excess production of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), IL-12, and TNF-α, in addition to free radicals, leading to impaired wound healing [81].”
    “inhibition of NETosis and NET function in mouse models of delayed wound healing improves outcomes [59•].”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 105 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 618

Metadata

Authors
Ellis, S., Lin, E. J., & Tartar, D.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Tartar, Danielle
Venue
Current Dermatology Reports
Published
2018-09-28
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
350-358
ISSN
2162-4933 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2892642834
Cited by
625
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 114 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 90 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 21
FWCI
4.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Dermatology Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatologic Treatments and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver physiology and pathology
Keywords
wound healing, chronic wounds, skin wound healing, neutrophils, efferocytosis, macrophages, interleukin-8, inflammation, angiogenesis, granulation tissue, myofibroblasts, scar formation, keratinocytes, dermal cells, immune signaling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review